Henderson v. St. Clair County Jail et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 22 ); OVERRULES Hendersons objection (Doc. 24 ); DENIES Hendersons motion to substitute defendant Watson in his individual capacity for deceased defendant Justus in his individ ual capacity (Doc. 17 ); DISMISSES Hendersons claims against Justus in his individual capacity without prejudice; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/8/2015. (jdh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIAM L. HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-986-JPG-DGW

ST. CLAIR COUNTY JAIL, RICHARD
WATSON, S. REID, MEARL JUSTUS, OFFICER
LEVI BRIDGES and LT. NICHOLS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc.
22) of Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson recommending that the Court deny plaintiff William
L. Henderson’s motion to substitute defendant Richard Watson in his individual capacity for
deceased defendant Mearl Justus in his individual capacity (Doc. 17). Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson found that, although Watson is an appropriate successor to the official capacity claims
against Justus because Watson succeeded Justus as sheriff of St. Clair County, he is not an
appropriate substitute for individual capacity claims since Watson is not the representative of
Justus’ personal estate, the appropriate successor to individual capacity claims. Henderson
objects (Doc. 24) on the grounds that he does not know who the personal representative of Justus
is.
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made.
Id. “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those
unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.

1999).
The Court has reviewed the matter de novo and finds that the Report is correct for the
reasons set forth therein. It is not the Court’s burden to identify the appropriate successor to a
defendant; Henderson is responsible for identifying the proper party to be substituted. Since he
has not done so, the Court must deny his motion, but it will dismiss Justus without prejudice so that
if Henderson ever does identify the proper party to be substituted, he may seek to amend his
complaint to add the proper party or file another lawsuit against that party. For these reasons, the
Court hereby:


ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 22);



OVERRULES Henderson’s objection (Doc. 24);



DENIES Henderson’s motion to substitute defendant Watson in his individual capacity for
deceased defendant Justus in his individual capacity (Doc. 17);



DISMISSES Henderson’s claims against Justus in his individual capacity without
prejudice; and



DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 8, 2015
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2